Journal of Vocational Behavior 94 (2016) 39–56

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / jvb

Role of personality and affect on the social support and workfamily conflict relationship

T.T. (Rajan) Selvarajan a, Barjinder Singh b, Peggy A. Cloninger b,⁎a California State University-East Bay, 25800 Carlos Bee Boulevard, Hayward, CA 94542, United Statesb School of Business Administration, University of Houston-Victoria, 14000, University Boulevard, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Business AdminE-mail addresses: selvarajant@mail.montclair.edu (T

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.02.0040001-8791/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 2 December 2015Received in revised form 3 February 2016Accepted 3 February 2016Available online xxxx

The relationship between support and work family conflict has been studied extensively, butprevious studies have not examined if personality moderates this relationship. In this research,we examine the moderating influence of personality on the relationship between contextualsupport and work-family conflict across two studies. In Study 1, we examine if core self-eval-uations (CSE) moderate the relationship between four different types of workplace support, 1.family friendly work policies (FFOP), 2. family supportive organizational climate (FSOC), 3. per-ceived organizational support (POS), and 4. perceived supervisor support (PSS), and work in-terfering with family conflict (WIF) using a sample of working adults (N=435). In Study 2,we examine if Big Five personality traits and negative affect moderate the relationship betweenco-worker support and (WIF) using a large national sample (N=1130) of working respondentsfrom the “midlife in the US” (MIDUS) study of health and well-being. Taken together, the cur-rent research examines the moderating effect of several key personality variables on the rela-tionship between important forms of social support and work family conflict. Results based onthese two samples indicate CSE moderates the relationship between POS and WIF, and PSS andWIF, but does not moderate the relationship between FFOP and WIF, or FSOC and WIF. Further,conscientiousness and agreeableness moderate the relationship between co-worker supportand WIF. Co-worker support and WIF is stronger for individuals with higher levels of negativeaffect. We discuss the implications for research and practice relating to work family conflict.

© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Core self-evaluationsBig Five personalitySocial supportWork family conflict

1. Introduction

Management of work and family lives is a huge challenge for U.S. employees (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012; Kelly et al.,2014). Most U.S. employees indicate that they are overworked and do not have the necessary workplace flexible arrangements todeal with conflicting work and family roles (Valcour, Ollier-Malaterre, Matz-Costa, Pitt-Catsouphes, & Brown, 2011; Galinsky et al.,2005; Tang & Wadsworth, 2008). In an effort to clarify the antecedents of efficient management of work–family conflict, work–family scholars have often focused on the role played by support (e.g., Carlson & Perrewé, 1999; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999;Kossek, Pichler, Bodner, & Hammer, 2011; Shockley & Allen, 2013).

Support has been broadly categorized as contextual support, defined as any form of support that originates outside of self andwithin various domains of life such as work or family (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). Within the domains of work and family,specific forms of support, such as social support and family friendly organizational policies have been found to be very effective inthe management of work–family conflict (Hammer, Kossek, Anger, Bodner, & Zimmerman, 2011; Kossek et al., 2011). Social

istration, University of Houston-Victoria, 14000 University Boulevard, Sugar Land, TX 77479, United States..T.(R.) Selvarajan), singhb9@uhv.edu (B. Singh), cloningerp@uhv.edu (P.A. Cloninger).

40 T.T.(R.) Selvarajan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 94 (2016) 39–56

support is defined as emotional, informational and instrumental assistance provided by significant others, like co-workers, super-visors or family members (Thoits, 2011) and family friendly organizational policies, are organizational practices that are aimedtowards ameliorating conflict in the work-family domains (Grover & Crooker, 1995). In summary, support acts as an importantresource that goes a long way in the management of work–family conflict and to understand this role played by support, conser-vation of resources (COR) theory offers a valuable framework (Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, & Westman, 2014;Hobfoll, Freedy, Lane, & Geller, 1990; Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012).

COR theory is an integrative theory of resources that conceives of resources broadly (Halbesleben et al., 2014). COR theory ar-gues that people seek to obtain and protect resources and in addition to contextual resources, personal characteristics also act askey resources that assist individuals in managing their work and personal lives (Hobfoll et al., 1990). COR theorists also contendthat resources not only help in achieving the desired goals but also aid the accomplishment of more resources (Ten Brummelhuis& Bakker, 2012; Halbesleben et al., 2014). Within the realm of COR theory, various forms of contextual support have been foundto be effective in buffering the conflict in the work–family interface (Michel & Clark, 2013). In addition to contextual sources, per-sonal resources, such as personality, also have been reported to influence work–family conflict (Michel, Mitchelson, Pichler, &Cullen, 2010; Michel & Clark, 2013). Although more companies have work life initiatives today than in the past, support in thework and family domains is becoming increasingly scarce as global competition has heighted the intensification of work andmore workers are single parents or part of a duel-earner family. Given contemporary work lives, it is important to examinehow personal resources act in conjunction with other sources of support in reducing work–family conflict (Kossek, Lewis, &Hammer, 2010).

In addition to COR theory, the Work–Home Resources (W‐HR) model proposed by Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker (2012) alsohighlights the importance of personal resources. According to the W-HR model, resources do not act in isolation, but ratherresources help in the production of other resources. For example, emotional support from a supervisor (a workplace resource)may lead to positive mood and enhanced self-esteem (personal resources), and together, these resources work towards work–family enrichment (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). The role of personal resources, such as personality, in the effective man-agement of work–family conflict has often cited in extant research. For example, Thoits (1994) regarded personality differences as‘coping resources’ that influence individual ability to cope with life's situations, and Grzywacz and Marks (2000) reported person-ality as a key influencer of work–family conflict.

Building on the above perspectives, we propose that contextual resources interact with personal resources to produce benefi-cial outcomes for the individual in the management of work–family conflict. In other words, contextual support resources fromwork and family domains interact with personal resource of personality to curb conflict in the work–family interface. From thework domain, we examine four important organizational support variables: family-friendly organizational policies (FFOP), family

Fig. 1. Research model.

41T.T.(R.) Selvarajan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 94 (2016) 39–56

supportive organizational climate (FSOC), perceived organizational support (POS), co-worker support and perceived supervisorysupport (PSS). From the family domain we examine one important form of support, i.e., spousal support. For personal resourcemoderators, we use several important personality variables, including core self-evaluations (CSE), Big Five dimensions, and neg-ative affectivity. Finally, on the outcome side, we examine two distinct forms of work–family conflict: work interfering with family(WIF) conflict and family interfering with work (FIW) conflict. WIF conflict occurs when demands of the workplace impede familyrole performance, while FIW occurs when demands of the family impede work-role performance (Netemeyer, Boles, &McMurrian, 1996; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992).

Our research model is presented in Fig. 1. As articulated above, the model suggests that individual personality moderates therelationship between contextual support and work–family conflict. Using data from two different sources we test our hypothesesby way of two studies (identified as Study 1 and Study 2 in the model). The first study, Study 1, includes the four organizationalsupport variables: FFOP, FSOC, POS and PSS, on one side and WIF on the other, with CSE as moderator. Study 2 focuses on therelationship between co-worker support and WIF with Big Five dimensions and negative affectivity as moderators. Both studiesalso include spouse/partner support as family support variable in relation to FIW.

With two studies and two different samples, our research uses data triangulation (Denzin, 1978) in the investigation of themoderating role of personality on the relationship between contextual support and work family conflict and contributes toexisting work–family literature in three ways. First, our interaction model is consistent with the COR theory as it discusses theimportance of resources (contextual and personal) in the management of work–family conflict (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Thestudy also expands on W-HR framework (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012) by establishing that personal resources not onlyarise from, but also enhance the efficacy of the contextual resources.

Second, in the examination of the above relationships our study voices the person-situation interactionist perspective(Ekehammer, 1974), by highlighting the importance of personality in the management of the work-life situations. According toMichel and Clark (2013), in the management of work–family conflict, the examination of individual differences as a boundarycondition is an important research question, one that has not been adequately researched. To our knowledge, only one study,by Boyar and Mosley (2007), focuses on examining the relationship between CSE and work–family conflict. Therefore, by includ-ing personal and situational variables to better understand work–family conflict, our study addresses an important call by work–family researchers (e.g., Allen et al., 2012; Bruck & Allen, 2003; Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2006; Michel et al., 2010; Michel & Clark, 2013; Shockley & Allen, 2007).

Finally, we examine the role of both specific and generic forms of organizational support. FFOP and FSOC are human resourcespractices specifically aimed at efficient management of work–family roles, while, generic support such as POS, PSS and co-workersupport is aimed at overall wellbeing of the employee. The inclusion of the above forms of support better informs both theory andpractice by providing an enhanced understanding of the nomological net of support variables and their role in reducing work–family conflict by synergistically interacting with personal-level support variables (Selvarajan, Cloninger, & Singh, 2013; Kosseket al., 2011).

2. Study 1

2.1. Literature review and hypotheses

2.1.1. CSE as moderator on the relationship between social support and work family conflictCSE represents a stable personality trait based upon an individual's evaluation of self in relation to the environment (Judge,

Locke, & Durham, 1997). People with a high level of CSE think positively of themselves and their ability to successfully managetheir environment (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998). CSE is a multidimensional construct with four dimensions: 1) selfefficacy, 2) self-esteem, 3) locus of control, and 4) emotional stability. Individuals with high levels of CSE have higher levels ofself-efficacy, self-esteem and emotional stability and have internal locus of control (Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge, & Scott, 2009).

CSE, with these four dimensions, acts as an important personal resource. According to the COR model, resources fall underthree categories, a) personal (e.g., self-esteem and self-efficacy), b) instrumental (e.g., money) and c) social (e.g., social support)(Hobfoll, 2001). Thus, CSE is a personal resource that has the potential to help employees successfully manage conflict in the workand family environment. According to work–family researchers, (e.g., Friede & Ryan, 2004), CSE influences the work–family inter-face in at least two important ways. First, CSE influences the appraisal of work and family roles, and also the level of perceivedstrain created by these roles. For example, an individual with positive CSE can perceive a demanding family or work role as chal-lenging while an individual with a negative CSE can appraise the same role as stressful. Thus, individuals with positive CSE tend tohave a positive appraisal of the work or family roles and consequently perceive lesser strain due to those roles. Second, individ-uals with positive CSE use positive coping strategies (such as problem focused coping) to solve problems and consequently, aremore efficient in managing conflict in their work and family roles (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2009). On the other hand, an indi-vidual with a negative CSE may use avoidance strategies to cope with problems which may further exacerbate their perception ofrole conflict in the work–family interface (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2009). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that an employee withhigh level of CSE is better able to manage the demands of family and work environment and to perceive lower levels of WIF andFIW.

Research on CSE and work family conflict has been sparse. To our knowledge, only one study, Boyar and Mosley (2007), hasexplicitly examined the relationship between CSE and work family conflict; in their study of employees in a retirement facility,they found that CSE was negatively related to WIF and FIW. As previously mentioned, the primary focus of this research is to

42 T.T.(R.) Selvarajan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 94 (2016) 39–56

examine how individual resources such as CSE may interact with social support in reducing conflict in the work–family interface.The person-situation perspective (e.g., Ekehammer, 1974) suggests that the interaction between personal factors (such as person-ality, individual ability) and situational factors can influence outcomes such as behavior, attitude or perception (Terborg,Richardson, & Pritchard, 1980). The person-situation perspective is also consistent with socio-cognitive theory (e.g., Mischel,1973; Shoda & Mischel, 1993), which proposes that the interaction of relatively stable personal attributes with situationalcharacteristics can produce patterns of behavior (Shoda, Mischel, & Peake, 1990). Furthermore, differential appraisals of a givensituation by different individuals often results in, unique behavior consequences (Endler & Magnusson, 1976). For example, asupportive supervisor may be viewed as more enabling for performance by individuals with low level of neuroticism comparedto those who are highly neurotic.

Although empirical evidence favoring the moderating influence of CSE in the relationship between social support system andwork–family conflict is lacking, research in stress and burnout provide support for a similar relationship. For example, De Hooghand Hartog (2009), in a study of leadership and burnout, found that charismatic leadership was associated with lower burnout foremployees with internal locus of control. In a similar vein, we expect that, at higher levels of CSE, the mitigating influence of socialsupport systems in the work domain in reducing WIF is synergistically enhanced. Thus, the negative relationship between socialsupport systems and WIF is stronger for those with high CSE. Likewise, we also expect that the relationship between spousal sup-port and FIW is stronger for those with high CSE. On the contrary, consistent with the person-situation perspective, employeeswith lower levels of CSE perceive the available social support as less efficacious in reducing work–family conflict, and for suchindividuals, the relationship between social support and WIF is weaker (Naswal, Severe, & Hellene, 2005; Cutrona, Hessling, &Suhr, 1997). The above review and discussion leads to the following set of hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. The inverse relationship between a) FFOP, b) FSOC, c) PSS and d) POS and WIF is moderated by CSE, such that thebuffering effect of social support on WIF will be stronger for those with higher levels of CSE than those with lower levels of CSE.

Hypothesis 2. The inverse relationship between perceived spousal support and FIW will be moderated by CSE, such that thebuffering effect of spouse support on FIW will be stronger for those with higher levels of CSE than for those with lower levelsof CSE.

2.2. Methodology for Study 1

2.2.1. Sample descriptionThis sample consisted of 435 full time employees who are employed at various organizations and enrolled in an executive

MBA program at a Southwestern university. They were recruited for this study in return for minimal extra credit. The averageage of the sample was 30.6 years. The sample consisted of approximately 59% women, and the average number of years ofwork experience was 10.9 years. Approximately 42% classified themselves as Caucasian, 15% as Latino, 19% as African–American, 18% as Asian, and 6% as belonging to other racial categories or indicated no race.

2.2.2. Measures for study 1Unless otherwise stated, respondents used a five point scale (1 for “Strongly Disagree” to 5 for “Strongly Agree”) to respond to

the items for the measures used in this study.

2.2.2.1. Family friendly organizational policies (FFOP). Family friendly organizational policies were measured using a check list ofseven commonly mentioned family friendly policies in the management literature. The participants were asked to indicatewhether the company provided these policies. The check list included family friendly policies such as telecommuting, compressedwork week, day care for children, flextime and leave to take care of family. Following Batt and Valcour (2003) and Ngo, Foley, andLoi (2009), we constructed an index of family friendly policies with values ranging from 0 to 7 based on the number of policiesprovided by the organization as specified by the participants in the survey.

2.2.2.2. WIF and FIW. The variables WIF and FIW were measured using the scale developed by Netemeyer et al. (1996). WIF wasmeasured with a five-item scale. A sample item from this scale is, “The demands of my work interfere with my home and familylife”. FIW was measured with a similar five-item scale. A sample item from this scale is, “My co-workers and peers at work dislikehow often I am preoccupied with my family life”. The Cronbach's alpha for the WIF and FIW scales were 0.86 and 0.83,respectively.

2.2.2.3. Perceived organizational support (POS) and perceived supervisory support (PSS). Perceived organizational support was mea-sured using the eight-item scale version of the measure developed by Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986). Asample item from this scale was, “My organization cares about my opinions”. Following Eisenberger et al. (1986), perceived su-pervisory support was measured by modifying the eight-item POS scale by replacing the word ‘organization’ with ‘supervisor/manager’ to derive the perceived supervisory support scale. A sample item from this measure was, “My manager/supervisorconsiders my goals and values”. The Cronbach's alpha for the POS and PSS scales were 0.92 and 0.93, respectively.

43T.T.(R.) Selvarajan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 94 (2016) 39–56

2.2.2.4. Family supportive organizational climate (FSOC). Family supportive organizational climate was measured using the 3-itemfamily work climate scale used by Kossek et al., (2001). A sample item from this scale was, “In my organization it is expectedthat employees have to take time away from families to get work done” (reverse coded). The Cronbach alpha for this scalewas 0.77.

2.2.2.5. Social support in the family domain. Social support in the family domain was measured using the four item scale used byFrone, Yardley, and Markel (1997) to measure tangible support from spouse/partner. A sample item from this scale was, “I candepend on my spouse/partner to help me if I really need it”. The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.80.

2.2.2.6. Core self-evaluations. We used the scale developed by Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2009) for measuring CSE and this scalecomprised of 12 items. The traits measured were self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, emotional stability and locus of control.The alpha reliability for this scale was 0.81.

2.2.2.7. Controls variables. We used the following control variables: age, gender, marital status and number of children. Thesevariables were chosen based on prior research studies of social support and work–family conflict (Byron, 2005; Powell &Greenhaus, 2010; Taylor, Delcampo, & Blancero, 2009).

2.3. Results Study 1

The descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 1. We performed regression analysis for testing the hypoth-eses, and the results of regression analysis are presented in Table 2. For all analyses, we included the control variables but for sim-plicity we did not show the results of the table. Hypothesis 1a–d pertains to the workplace support variables. As indicated in thistable, the moderating effect of CSE is significant for the support variables POS and PSS and not significant for the support variablesFFOC and FSOC. To understand significant interactions, we plotted the interactional effect for POS and the graph is presented inFig. 2. The graphs show that the relationship between POS and WIF was stronger for individuals with higher levels of CSE (lowCSE: B = 0.03, p N 0.05; high CSE: B = −.14, p b 0.05). Similarly, the interaction for the support variables PSS as shown inFig. 3 shows that the relationship between PSS and WIF is stronger for individuals with higher levels of CSE as hypothesized(low CSE: B = 0.04, p N 0.05; high CSE: B = −.12; p b 0.05). Results from Table 2 also indicate that CSE did not moderate therelationship between spouse support and FIW, and thus, Hypothesis 2 was not supported.

3. Study 2

In Study 1, we examine the moderating influence of CSE on the relationship between various forms of social support and workfamily conflict. In Study 2, we extend the research on work–family conflict by examining Big Five personality factors, conscious-ness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion as key moderators. The Big Five model of personality isthe most consequential model of personality studied in organizational research. Study 2 focuses on co-worker support as aworkplace social support and spousal support as family support variable. Our argument resonates with the principles of CORand W‐HR models as we propose that resources do not act in isolation but that resources synergistically interact with one anotherto influence outcomes in the work–family domain (Halbesleben et al., 2014; Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). Various person-ality variables, such as self-efficacy, type-A, locus of control have already been conceptualized as personal resources in extant re-search (e.g., Cohen & Edwards, 1989; Schwarzer, Boehmer, Luszczynska, Mohamed, & Knoll, 2005). In current research, weconceptualize the Big Five personality factors, or dimensions of personality, as personal resources, and propose them as modera-tors of contextual support in the work–family conflict relationship. Furthermore, we also examine the moderating influence ofnegative affect. Previous research on work family conflict indicates that negative affect that employees experience in their dailylives can significantly impact work family conflict (Ilies et al., 2007).

3.1. Literature review and hypotheses for Study 2

3.1.1. Big Five personality dimensions as moderators of support-WIF relationshipsWithin management and social psychology literatures, the Big Five personality taxonomy is the most widely accepted way of

describing and measuring individual personality (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Big Five dimensions have beensuccessfully associated with a host of individual outcomes either directly or indirectly (e.g., Demerouti, 2006; Hurtz & Donovan,2000; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004; Witt & Carlson, 2006; Zhao & Seibert, 2006). In addition to personal outcomes, the BigFive personality dimensions also have been reported to influence outcomes in the work–family domain (e.g., Wayne et al.,2004; Witt & Carlson, 2006).

3.1.1.1. Conscientiousness as moderator of contextual support and work–family conflict relationship. The first dimension of personalityfrom the Big Five that we discus is conscientiousness. Conscientiousness represents organization, hard work, drive and persistence(Zhao & Seibert, 2006). Labeled as the most consistent predictor of job performance, conscientiousness is a symbol of individualachievement motivation and dependability (Mount & Barrick, 1995). According to personality psychologists, conscientious is animportant personal resource, and high conscientiousness enables individuals to handle multiple roles in their work and family

Table 1Descriptions and correlations for Study 1.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 11 12

1. Age 30.646 8.0922. Gender 1.589 0.492 −0.0653. Marital status 1.700 0.960 0.412⁎⁎ −0.0754. No. of children 0.801 1.063 0.406⁎⁎ −0.003 0.398⁎⁎

5. Family income 3.479 1.568 0.410⁎⁎ −0.083 0.593⁎⁎ 0.258⁎⁎

6. FFOP 9.765 1.401 0.095⁎ 0.037 0.038 0.034 0.140⁎⁎

7. FSOC 3.205 0.904 −0.141⁎⁎ 0.131⁎⁎ −0.086 −0.086 −0.087 0.186⁎⁎

8. Perceived supervisor support 4.247 1.011 −0.045 −0.037 0.049 0.037 0.052 0.249⁎⁎ 0.254⁎⁎

9. Perceived organizational support 3.555 0.864 −0.008 0.005 −0.023 −0.033 −0.019 0.296⁎⁎ 0.288⁎⁎ 0.754⁎⁎

10. Perceived spouse/partner support 4.104 0.828 0.117⁎ −0.019 0.589⁎⁎ 0.135⁎ 0.367⁎⁎ 0.116⁎ 0.054 0.200⁎⁎ 0.09811. Core self evaluation 3.779 0.529 0.022 −0.070 0.084 0.043 0.045 0.241⁎⁎ 0.167⁎⁎ 0.277⁎⁎ 0.311⁎⁎ 0.231⁎⁎

12. Family interfering with work conflict (FIW) 2.082 0.667 0.080 −0.050 0.114⁎ 0.200⁎⁎ 0.077 −0.203⁎⁎ −0.197⁎⁎–0.212⁎⁎ −0.19⁎⁎ −0.092 −0.362⁎⁎

13. Work interfering with family conflict (WIF) 2.490 1.021 0.137⁎⁎ −0.17⁎⁎ 0.084 0.191⁎⁎ 0.038 −0.262⁎⁎ −0.549⁎⁎–0.300⁎⁎ −0.346⁎⁎ −0.106⁎ −0.261⁎⁎ 0.512⁎⁎

Note:⁎ p b 0.05.⁎⁎ p b 0.01.

44T.T.(R.)

Selvarajanetal./JournalofV

ocationalBehavior94

(2016)39–56

Fig. 2. Supervisor support and WIF: CSE as the moderator.

45T.T.(R.) Selvarajan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 94 (2016) 39–56

routines because of their faith in their personal abilities (Witt & Carlson, 2006; Zhao & Seibert, 2006). In contrast, individuals whoare low on conscientiousness, due to poor organization and lack of prioritization, witness greater difficulty in both role manage-ment and delivery, and consequently, are more susceptible poor performance (Witt & Carlson, 2006).

Empirical research on conscientiousness also supports that conscientiousness enhances individual ability to manage time effec-tively, solve problems creatively and buffers individuals against stress (Witt & Carlson, 2006). Thus, we believe that conscientious-ness is a unique personal resource, which would interact positively with other forms of support (e.g., co-worker support) infurther lowering the perceptions of work–family conflict. In other words, if a highly conscientious individual is also providedwith support from other sources, it would help such a person in further lowering perceptions of WIF, leading to the followinghypotheses.

Hypothesis 3a. The inverse relationship between co-worker support and WIF will be moderated by conscientiousness such thatthe relationship will be stronger for those with higher levels of conscientiousness.

Hypothesis 3b. The inverse relationship between spousal support and FIW will be moderated by conscientiousness such that therelationship will be stronger for those with higher levels of conscientiousness.

3.1.1.2. Agreeableness as moderator of contextual support and work–family conflict relationship. The personality dimension agreeable-ness suggests that agreeable individuals are highly sociable, cooperative and emphatic towards others; on the contrary, individualswho are low on agreeableness tend to be antagonistic and short tempered (Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999). Empirical researchhas shown that individuals who are highly agreeable are less emotional, while individuals with low scores on agreeableness dem-onstrate high emotions and quickly become distressed (Skarlicki et al., 1999; Wayne et al., 2004). An individual's tendency to get

Fig. 3. POS and WIF–CSE as the moderator.

46 T.T.(R.) Selvarajan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 94 (2016) 39–56

into any kind of relationship conflict is also determined based on agreeableness (Wayne et al., 2004). Individuals who are low onagreeableness not only attack other peoples' positions and ideas, but also tend to vigorously defend their positions, resulting instrong emotional episodes. Thus, individuals who are low on agreeableness are harder to satiate and quickly find themselvesembroiled in conflicts (Skarlicki et al., 1999; Wayne et al., 2004).

Based on the above evidence it is reasonable to assume that individuals who are low on agreeableness also would have a hardtime managing their work and family lives, and consequently perceive more WIF, even in the presence of contextual support, asopposed to individuals who are highly agreeable. Furthermore, research on personality has shown that agreeable individuals tendto exercise a better control over their emotions, especially when their emotions can be damaging for their interpersonal relation-ships (Yang & Diefendorff, 2009). Thus, agreeableness presents an important resource which positively interacts with other formsof support (e.g., coworker support), and consequently, an agreeable individual would perceive lesser WIF as opposed to individ-uals low on agreeableness. Therefore,

Hypothesis 4a. The inverse relationship between co-worker support and WIF will be moderated by agreeableness such that therelationship will be stronger for those with higher levels of conscientiousness.

Hypothesis 4b. The inverse relationship between spousal support and FIW will be moderated by agreeableness such that the re-lationship will be stronger for those with higher levels of conscientiousness.

3.1.1.3. Neuroticism asmoderator of contextual support andwork–family conflict relationship.Neuroticism is also referred to as emotionalstability and is defined as anxiety, insecurity, tension, and worry (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999;McCrae & John, 1992), and these characteristics are responsible for more perceived stress, which, in turn, amplifies the conflict expe-rienced in work–family lives (Stoeva, Chiu, & Greenhaus, 2002). Thus, a person's tendency to experience negative emotions in re-sponse to an environmental stimulus is greatly affected by neuroticism (Clark, Watson, & Mineka, 1994; Wayne et al., 2004). Highlevels of neuroticism have been associated with several maladaptive outcomes, such as increased psychological distress (Suls,Green, & Hillis, 1998) and increased vulnerability to anxiety and depression (Clark et al., 1994; Djurkovic, McCormack, & Casimir,2006). Not only do highly neurotic individuals experience negative emotions, they also lack the ability to make the most of the sup-port provided to them(Elovainio, Kivimäki, Vahtera, Virtanen, & Keltikangas-Järvinen, 2003). Therefore,we propose that a lower levelof neuroticism acts like a resource that synergistically interacts with other forms of support to curb WIF. In other words, it is quitereasonable to assume that support would mean very little to individuals with high levels of neuroticism but, individuals low on neu-roticism, would utilize support more productively, and consequently perceive lesser WIF. Therefore,

Hypothesis 5a. The inverse relationship between co-worker support and WIF is moderated by neuroticism such that the relation-ship will be weaker for those with higher levels neuroticism.

Hypothesis 5b. The inverse relationship between spousal support and FIW is moderated by neuroticism such that the relationshipwill be weaker for those with higher levels of neuroticism.

3.1.1.4. Openness to experience asmoderator of contextual support andwork–family conflict relationship.Openness to experience is a BigFive dimension that explains the extent to which an individual is broad-minded, imaginative, curious, and open to new ideas andexperiences (George & Zhou, 2001; Wayne et al., 2004). In contrast, individuals who are low on openness to experience preferconventional and familiar routines in life (Costa & McCrae, 1992; George & Zhou, 2001). Research has shown that individualswith a high level of openness to experience possess a wider repertoire of ideas, feelings and perspectives and making them betterequipped to handle challenging circumstances. Openness to experience, in many ways is a resource that makes individuals moreaccepting of change, and in many ways improves individual creativity in developing solutions and handling conflict. Highly openindividuals, by virtue of being exposed to several different situations, possess a wealth of experience which offers them a usefulresource that they can willingly transfer from one domain to benefit behavior in another (George & Zhou, 2001; Wayne et al.,2004). Some studies report that, highly open individuals create challenges to alter the status quo in their lives to avoid monotony(e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992). Thus, individuals with high levels of openness are more comfortable in the times of uncertainty andare more likely, than individuals with low levels of openness, to make use of situational resources to manage work-life pressuresand conflicts. This suggests the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 6a. The inverse relationship between co-worker support and WIF will be moderated by openness to experience suchthat the relationship will be stronger for those with higher levels of openness to experience.

Hypothesis 6b. The inverse relationship between spousal support and FIW will be moderated by openness to experience suchthat the relationship will be stronger for those with higher levels of openness to experience.

3.1.1.5. Extraversion as moderator of contextual support and work–family conflict relationship. Extraversion is one of the dominantdimensions of the Big Five personality model which is fairly stable over the course of a person's life, and is instrumental ininfluencing a host of individual work behaviors (Bauer, Erdogan, Liden, & Wayne, 2006). Individuals who are extroverts are gen-erally quite outgoing, social, and gregarious, and they seek opportunities to interact with others (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Two

47T.T.(R.) Selvarajan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 94 (2016) 39–56

characteristics of extroverts that really stand out are positivity and energy, and are especially relevant in the management of con-flict (Wayne et al., 2004). Extroverts possess higher levels of energy and consequently, are able to accomplish more in a giventime and to perceive less fatigue than introverts (Wayne et al., 2004). Due to their focus on positive aspects of situations, extra-version acts a resource that helps in making work-life situations as less stressful

Studies have also shown that extroverts have a tendency to attract social attention, and accordingly, they engage in behaviorsthat garner social limelight (Ashton, Lee, & Paunonen, 2002). With respect to job characteristics, it also has been reported thatextrovert individuals seek tasks that are challenging, novel, and with higher levels of complexity (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Intro-verts, on the other hand, are reluctant to partake in social interactions and are more comfortable in either their own company orthe company of habitual others (Bauer et al., 2006). With respect to job characteristics too, introverts have been found to preferwork routines that are predictable in nature (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

From the above distinctions between extroverts and introverts, it can be inferred due to their very nature, that extroverts aremore open to challenging routines and work assignments, and consequently, extroverts also are bound to experience more con-flict in their work–non-work roles and perceive greater WIF. However, since extroverts also possess higher levels of energy andpositivity, they also are in a better position to handle conflict. Therefore, we propose that if extroverts are offered contextual sup-port they can make a better use of the support in lowering their perceptions of WIF, than introverts. Research on personality hasalso shown that extroverts are more likely to experience reward sensitivity, which, “facilitates and guides approach behavior to-wards goal” (Depue & Collins, 1999: 495). Reward sensitivity has been reported to be composed of dimensions such as socialdominance, assertiveness, and goal accomplishment (Depue & Collins, 1999), and has been identified as a higher-order factorthat underlies the dimension of extroversion. Hence, it is in the very nature of extroverts to exert greater effort, and in such sce-narios, greater support would hold a greater prominence for extroverts as opposed to introverts. Therefore,

Hypothesis 7a. The inverse relationship between co-worker support and WIF will be moderated by extraversion such that therelationship will be stronger for those with higher levels of extraversion.

Hypothesis 7b. The inverse relationship between spousal support and FIW will be moderated by extraversion such that therelationship will be stronger for those with higher levels of extraversion.

3.1.2. Negative affect as moderator of contextual support and work–family conflict relationshipThe personality dimensions discussed above refer to individual traits, while the affect we examine in this hypothesis is a mea-

sure of individual emotional states (Larsen & Ketelaar, 1989). For the moderating role of negative affect on the relationship be-tween contextual support and work family conflict, we expect that the effect would be stronger for individuals with highlevels of negative affectivity. According to the COR theory, resource losses have greater consequences for the individuals, andhence, they strive to mobilize resources so that they can recover from the losses (Hobfoll et al., 1990; Halbesleben et al.,2014). Research has established that negative affectivity is symptomatic of resource loss (Hobfoll, 2001). Thus we would expectindividuals with higher levels of negative affectivity to be more inclined to better utilize resources such as co-worker supportto recover from a loss. For example, an employee who has experienced a negative affective event will perceive higher levels ofwork–family conflict due to his/her emotional state. In order to overcome the situation, the employee may actively seek out orutilize available co-worker support to reduce work–family conflict

Extant research provides support for the above notion that individuals with high levels of negative affectivity may better uti-lize resources to reduce role overload. In a study of hospital doctors, Parker, Johnson, Collins, and Ngyuen (2013) found that thebuffering effect of socio-structural support on role overload was stronger for individuals with higher levels of negative affectivity.In a similar vein, in the current research, we expect that the relationship between social support and work conflict will be stron-ger for individuals with higher levels of negative affectivity. Therefore,

Hypothesis 8. The inverse relationship between co-worker support and WIF will be moderated by negative affectivity such thatthe relationship will be stronger for those with higher levels of negative affectivity.

Hypothesis 9. The inverse relationship between spouse support and FIW will be moderated by negative affectivity such that therelationship will be stronger for those with higher levels of negative affectivity.

3.2. Methodology for Study 2

3.2.1. Sample descriptionThe sample comes from the second wave of the midlife in the US (MIDUS) study of health and well-being conducted by Uni-

versity of Wisconsin research center. The sample has been used in previous work–family studies (e.g., Grzywacz & Marks, 2000;Grzywacz, 2000). The MIDUS sample was identified using random-digit dialing. The first wave of the survey was conducted in1995 and the response rate was around 70%. During the second wave of the survey conducted in 2005, over 90% of the partici-pants in the first wave were contacted and the response rate for this wave was around 75%. The data was collected using tele-phone interviews and self-administered questionnaires. For this research, the sample size was 1130 respondents who indicatedthat they were working at the time of the survey. The average age of respondents was 50.14. In terms of gender and race,50.9% of respondents were women and over 85% identified themselves as White.

48 T.T.(R.) Selvarajan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 94 (2016) 39–56

3.2.2. Measures

3.2.2.1. Co-worker support. Co-worker support was measured using a 5 point scale ranging from 1 for “all of the time” to 5 for“never”. The scale had two items and a sample item in the scale was, “How often do you get help and support from your co-workers?” We reversed the scale for the analysis so that lower values reflect lower levels of support and higher values reflecthigher levels of support. The coefficient alpha reliability for this scale was 0.67.

3.2.2.2. Spouse support. Spouse support was measured using a 4 point scale ranging from 1 for “a lot” to 4 for “not at all”. The scalehad six items and a sample item in the scale was, “How much does your spouse or partner really care about you?” Again, wereversed the scale so that lower values reflect lower levels of support and higher values reflect higher levels of support. Thecoefficient alpha reliability for this scale was 0.9.

3.2.2.3.WIF and FIW. The variables were measured using a 5 point scale ranging from 1 “all of the time” to 5 for “never”. Each scalehad four items and a sample item in the WIF scale was, “Your job reduces the effort you can give to activities at home.” A sampleitem in the FIW scale was, “Responsibilities at home reduce the effort you can devote to your job.” The scales were reversed sothat lower values reflect lower levels of conflict and vice versa. The coefficient alpha reliability for the WIF scale was 0.81 and forthe FIW scale it was 0.78.

3.2.2.4. Big Five personality. For the MIDUS sample, personality was measured using self-descriptive adjectives for each of the fivedimensions. The items for the scale were drawn from Goldberg's (1992) markers for the Big Five personality scale. Conscientious-ness was measured using five adjectives (Organized, Responsible, Hardworking, Careless (Reverse coded), Thorough), agreeable-ness with five adjectives (Helpful, Warm, Caring, Softhearted, Sympathetic), neuroticism with four adjectives (Moody, Worrying,Nervous, Calm (Reverse code)), extraversion with five adjectives (Outgoing, Friendly, Lively, Active, Talkative) and openness toexperience with seven adjectives (Creative, Imaginative, Intelligent, Curious, Broad-minded, Sophisticated, Adventurous). The au-thors for the MIDUS project conducted a pilot project for the scale development of personality variables (Lachman & Weaver,1997). As mentioned in this scale development research, a pilot study was conducted with a probability sample of 1000 menand women to validate the personality scale used in this research. Conscientiousness, measured using the 5 items, had analpha reliability of 0.68. Agreeableness had an alpha reliability of 0.80. Neuroticism had an alpha reliability of 0.74. Extraversionhad alpha reliability of 0.76, and openness to experience had an alpha reliability of 0.77.

3.2.2.5. Negative affectivity. For measuring negative affectivity, the study used five negative adjectives from the PANAS scale(Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) and the participants were asked to rate the affect based on their feelings during the past30 days. The alpha reliability for this scale is 0.8.

3.2.2.6. Control variables.We used the following control variables: age, gender, marital status and number of children. These vari-ables were chosen based on prior research studies of social support and work–family conflict (Byron, 2005; Powell & Greenhaus,2010; Taylor et al., 2009).

3.3. Results of Study 2

The descriptive statistics for this study are presented in Table 3. The results of moderated regression analysis are presented inTable 4 and Table 5. As indicated in Table 4, the relationship between co-worker support and WIF was stronger for individualswith higher levels of conscientiousness, thus providing support for Hypothesis 3a. Similarly, the relationship between co-worker support and WIF was stronger for individuals with higher levels of agreeableness, this supports Hypothesis 4a.

To better understand these interaction effects, we plotted the interactions. Consistent with the hypothesis, Fig. 4 shows thatthe relationship between co-worker support and WIF was stronger for individuals with higher levels of conscientiousness (lowconscientiousness: B = −.21, p b 0.01; high conscientiousness: B = −.34, p b 0.01). Similarly, Fig. 5 shows that the relationshipbetween co-worker support and WIF was stronger for individuals with higher levels of agreeableness (low agreeableness: B =−0.19, p b 0.05; high agreeableness: B = −0.38, p b 0.01). As presented in Table 4, the other three Big Five personality variablesdid not moderate the relationship between co-worker support and WIF. Similarly, none of the Big Five personality factors mod-erated the relationship between spouse support and FIW. Thus Hypotheses 3b–7b and 5a–7a were not supported.

Hypothesis 8 predicted that the relationship between social support and work–family conflict will be stronger for individualswith higher levels of negative affectivity. Results from Table 4 suggest that the relationship between co-worker support and WIF isstronger for individuals with higher levels of negative affectivity, thus providing support for Hypothesis 8. The interaction isshown in Fig. 6. As observed in this figure, the relationship between co-worker support and WIF is stronger for individualswith higher levels of negative affectivity, as hypothesized (low negative affectivity: B = −0.16, p b 0.01; high negative affectivity:B = −0.33, p b 0.01. Results from Table 5 indicate that negative affectivity did not moderate the relationship between spousesupport and FIW. Thus, Hypothesis 9 was not supported.

Table 3Descriptions and correlations for Study 2 (MIDUS sample).

Variables Mean S.D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Age 55.43 12.45 12. Gender 1.53 0.50 .004 13. Marital status 1.75 0.44 −.133⁎⁎ −.161⁎⁎ 14. No of children 2.50 1.76 .256⁎⁎ .021 .150⁎⁎ 15. WFC 10.08 2.85 −.253⁎⁎ −.006 .035 −.083⁎⁎ 16. FWC 8.14 2.47 −.275⁎⁎ .057⁎⁎ .019 −.031 .539⁎⁎ 17. Negative affectivity 1.54 0.53 −.180⁎⁎ .079⁎⁎ −.044⁎⁎ −.056⁎⁎ .313⁎⁎ .345⁎⁎ 18. Agreeableness 3.45 0.50 .109⁎⁎ .283⁎⁎ −.045⁎⁎ .064⁎⁎ −.100⁎⁎ −138⁎⁎ −.089⁎⁎ 19. Extraversion 3.11 0.57 .059⁎⁎ .079⁎⁎ −.011 .048⁎⁎ −.166⁎⁎ −143⁎⁎ −.209⁎⁎ .504⁎⁎ 110. Neuroticism 2.07 0.63 −.178⁎⁎ .115⁎⁎ −.031⁎ −.066⁎⁎ .333⁎⁎ 344⁎⁎ .560⁎⁎ −.114⁎⁎ −.196⁎⁎ 111. Conscientiousness 3.39 0.46 −.027 .082⁎⁎ .052⁎⁎ −.018 −.132⁎⁎ −.160⁎⁎ −.231⁎⁎ .291⁎⁎ .284⁎⁎ −.197⁎⁎ 112. Openness to experience 2.90 0.54 −.005 −.050⁎⁎ −.037⁎ −.050⁎⁎ −.080⁎⁎ −117⁎⁎ −.150⁎⁎ .331⁎⁎ .513⁎⁎ −.213⁎⁎ .342⁎⁎ 113. Coworker support 7.25 1.49 .006 .048⁎ .054⁎⁎ .039 −.166⁎⁎ −142⁎⁎ −.113⁎⁎ .145⁎⁎ .145⁎⁎ −110⁎⁎ .102⁎⁎ .086⁎⁎ 114. Spouse support 3.63 0.53 .104⁎⁎ −.137⁎⁎ .076⁎⁎ .000 −.133⁎⁎ −.247⁎⁎ −.251⁎⁎ .127⁎⁎ .167⁎⁎ −.171⁎⁎ .118⁎⁎ .136⁎⁎ 097⁎⁎ 1

⁎ p b 0.05.⁎⁎ p b 0.01.

49T.T.(R.)

Selvarajanetal./JournalofV

ocationalBehavior94

(2016)39–56

Table 2Regression analysis for Study 1.

VariablesDV: WIF/FIW

Model R- squared R-squared change due to interactionB SE t

IV. FFOP 0.19⁎⁎ 0.005FFOP −0.16 0.03 −4.87⁎⁎

CSE −0.44 0.09 −5.01⁎⁎

CSE ∗ FFOP −0.03 0.07 −0.53IV: FSOC 0.37⁎⁎ 0.000FSOC −0.55 0.04 −12.31⁎⁎

CSE −0.36 0.08 −4.76⁎⁎

CSE ∗ FSOC −0.09 0.08 −1.10IV: Supervisor support 0.21⁎⁎ 0.008⁎

Supervisor support −0.26 0.05 −5.7⁎⁎

CSE −0.42 0.09 −4.79⁎⁎

CSE ∗ supervisor support −0.15 0.08 −1.99⁎

IV: POS 0.23⁎⁎ 0.008⁎

POS −0.33 0.05 −6.12⁎⁎

CSE −0.37 C C3 −4.29⁎⁎

CSE ∗ POS −0.18 0.09 −1.98⁎

IV: Spouse support 0.21⁎⁎ 0.000Spouse support −0.05 0.05 −1.10CSE −0.51 0.06 −8.42⁎⁎

CSE ∗ spouse support 0.07 0.07 1.00

Dependent variable for spouse support is FIW and for all work support variables, the dependent variable is \Ai.⁎⁎ p ≤ 0.01.⁎ p b 0.05.

50 T.T.(R.) Selvarajan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 94 (2016) 39–56

4. Discussion

The objective of this research is to examine how various types of support originating from the workplace and family domainsinteract with a broad range of personality variables to influence work–family conflict. Building on existing work–family literature,we tested this proposition using two large samples and tried to address a major gap in work–family research. Three contributionsemerge from the results of this study.

Table 4Regression analysis for Study 2 (MIDUS sample). Co-worker support and WIF.

ModelDV: WIF

Model R-squared R-squared change due to interactionB SE t

Moderator: conscientiousness 0.09⁎⁎ 0.002⁎

Co-worker support −0.28 0.04 −7.7⁎⁎

Conscientiousness −0.90 0.12 −7.2⁎⁎

Interaction −0.15 0.08 −1.96⁎

Moderator: agreeableness 0.08⁎⁎ 0.002⁎

Co-worker support −0.29 0.04 −7.7⁎⁎

Agreeableness −0.32 0.11 −2.84⁎⁎

Interaction −0.17 0.07 −2.39⁎

Moderator: neuroticism 0.17⁎⁎ 0.0003Co-worker support −0.24 0.04 −6.8⁎⁎

Neuroticism 1.37 0.09 16.08⁎⁎

Interaction −0.05 0.05 −0.91Moderator: extraversion 0.09⁎⁎ 0.000Co-worker support −0.27 0.04 −7.26⁎⁎

Extraversion −0.73 0.10 −7.62⁎⁎

Interaction −0.01 0.06 −0.15Moderator: opennessCo-worker support −0.29 0.04 −7.8⁎⁎ 0.08⁎⁎ 0.0001Openness to experience −0.30 0.10 −2.94⁎⁎

Interaction −0.12 0.07 −1.86Moderator: negative affectivity 0.17⁎⁎ 0.002⁎

Co-worker support −0.24 0.03 −6.8⁎⁎

Negative affectivity 1.69 0.11 15.73⁎⁎

Interaction −0.16 0.07 −2.44⁎

⁎⁎ p ≤ 0.01.⁎ p b 0.05.

Table 5Regression analysis for Study 2 (MIDUS sample). Spouse support and FIW.

ModelDV: FIW

Model R-squared R-squared change due to interactionB SE t

Moderator: conscientiousness 0.15⁎⁎ 0.000Spouse support 0.87 0.09 −9.68⁎⁎

Conscientiousness −0.79 0.12 −6.89⁎⁎

Interaction 0.15 0.18 0.82Moderator: agreeableness 0.15⁎⁎ 0.000Spouse support −0.86 0.09 −9.46⁎⁎

Agreeableness −0.60 0.10 −5.81⁎⁎

Interaction 0.16 0.15 1.08Moderator: neuroticism 0.17⁎⁎ 0spouse support −0.82 0.09 −9.23⁎⁎

Neuroticism 1.11 0.08 14.23⁎⁎

Interaction 0.01 0.13 0.08Moderator: extraversion 0.15⁎⁎ 0.000Spouse support −0.87 0.09 −9.43⁎⁎

Extraversion −0.46 0.09 −5.09⁎⁎

Interaction 0.09 0.14 0.66Moderator: opennessSpouse support −0.90 0.09 −9.83⁎⁎ 0.14⁎⁎ 0.000Openness to experience −0.39 0.10 −4.11⁎⁎

Interaction −0.24 0.16 −1.47Moderator: negative affectivity 0.14⁎⁎ 0.000Spouse support −0.71 0.09 −7.74⁎⁎

Negative affectivity 1.47 0.10 14.18⁎⁎

Interaction 0.16 0.14 1.15

⁎⁎ p ≤ 0.01.⁎ p b 0.05.

51T.T.(R.) Selvarajan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 94 (2016) 39–56

First, based on the results from Study 1, we found that CSE moderated POS-WIF, as well as PSS-WIF relationships. However,CSE did not moderate the relationship between FFOP and WIF, nor between FSOC and WIF. This pattern of results suggeststhat CSE interacted with generic types of social support to further reduce WIF. The synergistic effect of support and CSE wasnot present for family-specific social supportive practices like FFOP and FSOC. This indicates that when the organizational supportis family-specific, CSE does not provide an incremental synergistic effect to further reduce the conflict, but when the support isgeneric, CSE provides that extra edge to further reduce the work–family conflict. This is an interesting result which adds new in-formation to Kossek et al.’s (2011) meta-analytic research. Their research had suggested that generic support had weaker impacton work–family conflict than family-specific support, but our study indicates that personal resources such as CSE interact with thegeneric forms of support (POS and PSS) to make these support resources more potent in reducing the work–family conflict.

The results are also supportive of the prescriptions of COR theory, whereby, employees may choose to conserve their personalresources, such as CSE, in a work environment which is already replete with family-specific support, as family specific support byitself can considerably reduce work–family conflict. In contrast, generic support may not be sufficient to reduce work–family con-flict and consequently, employees feel the need to deploy personal resources, such as CSE, to further reduce work–family conflict.In addition, the results also contribute to WH-R model, by reporting the interactive properties of different forms of support in themanagement of work–family conflict.

Fig. 4. Co-worker support and WIF: conscientiousness as moderator.

Fig. 5. Figure: co-worker support and WIF: agreeableness as moderator.

52 T.T.(R.) Selvarajan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 94 (2016) 39–56

Second, based on the results from Study 2 we found that conscientiousness and agreeableness moderated the relationship be-tween co-worker support and WIF. These results underscore the importance of conscientiousness and agreeableness, in conjunc-tion with social support at workplace, as important dimensions that can help to buffer work–family conflict. Organizationalresearch has recognized that these two personality dimensions can predict a broad range of outcomes more than any other per-sonality dimension (e.g., Chiaburu, Oh, Berry, & Ning, 2011). For instance, according to Witt, Burke, Barrick, and Mount (2002),conscientiousness is the most consistent predictor of individual outcomes. Individuals who are high in conscientiousness arenot only organized, disciplined, diligent, dependable, methodical, and purposeful but they are also cognitively more advanced(Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001) and consequently, they are more likely, than others to thoroughly and correctly work towardsdealing with work–family conflict.

Similarly, agreeableness, which reflects a higher degree of selflessness, helpfulness, tolerance and flexibility, in situationswhere joint action and a selfless outlook is required, provided an extra edge to individuals (Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998).In other words, agreeable individuals have the ability to deal with conflict in cooperative and collaborative way, more than others,and they strive for common understanding and aim for maintaining a healthy balance in social situations (Digman, 1990). Withregard to agreeableness, some researchers also contend that it is the primary concept that needs to be considered in the evalua-tion of individual differences (e.g., Havill, Besevegis, & Mouroussaki, 1998). Therefore, we feel that in the determination of work–family conflict, in the presence of all the Big Five dimensions, conscientiousness and agreeableness are the two dimensions thatstand out as prime facie moderators of social support from co-workers.

Third, as predicted, we found that the relationship between co-worker support and WIF is stronger for individuals with higherlevels of negative affect. Although this appears counterintuitive, the findings are consistent with the COR theory (Hobfoll et al.,1990) and the findings of Parker et al. (2013). These results also are consistent with our propositions, and our results whichfound that individuals with higher levels of negative affect can more effectively leverage social support to reduce WIF. On the

Fig. 6. Figure: co-worker support and WIF—negative affectivity as moderator.

53T.T.(R.) Selvarajan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 94 (2016) 39–56

other hand, individuals with already low levels of negative affect are not able to effectively utilize the social support to reducework–family conflict. This finding illustrates that the need for support and the utilization of support depend on the individual sit-uation. Based on our results, for individuals with high levels of negative affectivity, support seems to be very helpful in the man-agement of WIF, but for individuals with low levels of negative affectivity, support is not very effective. Similar results also havebeen reported in management literature. For example, in their examination of individualism versus collectivism as moderator, Lai,Singh, Alshwer, and Shaffer (2014) report that individuals who scored high on individualism were more likely to use resources,such as social support and interpersonal trust in order to engage in citizenship behaviors as opposed to collectivists.

5. Implications for research and practice

5.1. Implications for research

Work-family researchers can further build on the above concepts and findings to expand the domain of work-conflict re-search. First, since the negative affective state seems to interact with social support in a different manner compared to person-ality variables, it would be interesting for future research to examine if Big Five personality dimensions interact with affect andsocial support to influence work family conflict. For example, although we did not find significant interaction for neuroticismand co-worker support, it would be interesting to examine a three way interaction among these two variables and negative af-fectivity. We performed a post hoc analysis and found that the interaction between co-worker support and neuroticism is stron-ger for individuals with higher negative affect. That is, even for individuals with high levels of neuroticism, when theyexperience higher negative affect they are better able to utilize the co-worker support to reduce work family conflict. A similarthree way interaction was observed for the openness to experience dimension. Thus, future research models can include inter-action between social support, personality and affective states to examine how they influence work family conflict. It also wouldbe interesting for future research to examine if Big Five personality dimensions interact with perceived social status to influencework family conflict. The literature indicates that lower-status groups, such as traditionally identified as women, minorities, andthose of lower socio-economic status, etc., experience greater stress and have fewer stress-buffering resources than higher-status groups (e.g., Thoits, 1992). Another avenue of research should investigate the resilience of workers over time. COR theorysuggests that each time resources are diminished an individual will seek to conserve resources and be less able to cope withwork and family demands, leading to additional losses of resources.

Lastly, our research found that co-workers are more important than managers when it comes to work family conflict. Thisfinding seems to contradict some studies that suggest that co-workers can resent workers, especially parents given ‘special treat-ment’ to help them deal with WIF, and other studies that argue that the climate depends primarily upon supportive managers.This finding, however, appears to be keeping with Kossek et al. (2010) who suggest that workers are receiving ambiguous andmixed messages regarding work-life policies and practices, and the stereotype persists of the ideal worker as someone whodoes not need support. Thus, future research should examine co-worker support in conjunction with supervisor support andother contextual variables. The two samples are different in terms of age where the correlation between age and work–familyconflict is negative for the MIDUS sample and this pattern is consistent with previous research which suggests that age is nega-tively related to work–family conflict for older employees as they become empty nesters (Allen & Finkelstein, 2014). For sample 1with younger employees, there was a positive relationship between age and work–family conflict and this may be due to the factthat relatively ‘older’ employees in this sample may have started their families with children which may contribute to increasedwork–family conflict.

5.2. Managerial implications

The research also has important implications for managers and practitioners. The research has identified that in the man-agement of work–family conflict individual personality plays an important role. Individuals with higher conscientiousnessand higher agreeableness can be more proactive in better utilizing the workplace resources in better managing work–familyconflict. We also found that CSE did not moderate the relationship between work–family specific support systems such asFFOP and FSOC. This finding has important implications for managers as introducing and implementing effectively familyfriendly policies and family supportive climate can be a great equalizer and can be effective for individuals regardless oftheir personality strengths. Often, despite all possible organizational efforts and provisions of support, employees still feelthe brunt of work–family conflict, which in turn reflects in their work behaviors. By highlighting the role of personality as amoderator in management of work–family conflict, our study provides a valuable piece in solving the puzzle of work–familyconflict management. Although it can be quite a challenge for organizational practitioners to alter individual personalities, butin an effort to manage work–family conflict, our study provides important insights for organizational practitioners andmanagers.

Current research analyzed work–family policies as an index and thus we did not analyze influence of each of the work–family policies. Future researchers may analyze the influence of each of the work family policies separately so that it canprovide more informed guidance for practitioners as to which policies may be more effective in reducing work familyconflict.

54 T.T.(R.) Selvarajan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 94 (2016) 39–56

6. Limitations and conclusions

The research also has a few limitations. First, both the studies are cross sectional in nature, and thus we should be cautious toarrive at any causal conclusions based on this research. Second, the research is based on single source and thus common methodbias could be a potential concern. However, the significance of interaction in this research means that common method bias maynot be a significant issue for this research (DiRenzo, Greenhaus, & Weer, 2011). Future research designs should collect data frommultiple sources to ensure that common method bias is eliminated.

In spite of these limitations, this research has made important contributions to the existing work–family literature by exam-ining the influence of interaction between social support and personality on work–family conflict management. By including abroad set of social support systems and personality measures including affect, our research provides a strong starting point forresearch on social support and work–family conflict from a person situation interactionist perspective.

References

Allen, T.D., & Finkelstein, L.M. (2014). Work–family conflict among members of full-time dual-earner couples: An examination of family life stage, gender, and age.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(3), 376–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036941.

Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Saboe, K. N., Cho, E., Dumani, S., & Evans, S. (2012). Dispositional variables and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis.Journal of. VocationalBehavior, 80(1), 17–26.

Ashton, M.C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S.V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion?: Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 83(1), 245.

Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis.Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 78(1), 111.Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., & Judge, T.A. (2001). The FFM personality dimensions and job performance: Meta-analysis of meta-analyses. International Journal of Selection

and Assessment, 9(1/2), 9–30.Batt, R., & Valcour, P. (2003). Human resources practices as predictors of work–family outcomes and employee turnover. Industrial Relations, 42(2), 189–220.Bauer, T.N., Erdogan, B., Liden, R.C., & Wayne, S.J. (2006). A longitudinal study of the moderating role of extraversion: Leader–member exchange, performance, and

turnover during new executive development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 298.Boyar, S.L., & Mosley, D.C., Jr. (2007). The relationship between core self-evaluations and work and family satisfaction: The mediating role of work–family conflict and

facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71265–281.Bruck, C.S., & Allen, T.D. (2003). The relationship between Big Five personality traits, negative affectivity, type A behavior, and work–family conflict. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 457–472.Byron, D. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169–198.Carlson, D.S., & Perrewé, P.L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor-strain relationship: An examination of work–family conflict. Journal of Management,

25(4), 513.Chiaburu, D., Oh, I., Berry, C., & Ning, L. (2011). The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2011),

1140–1166.Clark, L.A., Watson, D., & Mineka, S. (1994). Temperament, personality, and the mood and anxiety disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(1), 103.Cohen, S., & Edwards, J.R. (1989). Personality characteristics as moderators of the relationship between stress and disorder.Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665.Cutrona, C.E., Hessling, R.M., & Suhr, J.A. (1997). The influence of husband and wife personality on marital social support interactions. Personal Relationships, 4,

379–393.De Hoogh, A.B., & Hartog, D. (2009). Neuroticism and locus of control as moderators of the relationships of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 1058–1067.Demerouti, E. (2006). Job characteristics, flow, and performance: The moderating role of conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(3), 266.Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.Depue, R.A., & Collins (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain

Sciences, 22, 491–569.Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417–440.DiRenzo, M.S., Greenhaus, J.H., & Weer, C.H. (2011). Job level, demands, and resources as antecedents of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(2),

305–314.Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D., & Casimir, G. (2006). Neuroticism and the psychosomatic model of workplace bullying. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(1), 73–88.Eby, L.T., Casper, W.J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002).

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 124–197.Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.Ekehammer, B. (1974). Interactionism in personality from a historical perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1026–1048.Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M., Vahtera, J., Virtanen, M., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2003). Personality as a moderator in the relations between perceptions of organizational

justice and sickness absence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 379–395.Endler, N.S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Toward an interactional psychology of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 83(5), 956–974.Friede, A., & Ryan, A. (2004). The importance of the individual: How self-evaluations influence the work-family interface. In E.E. Kossek, & S.J. Lambert (Eds.),Work and

life integration: Organizational, cultural and individual perspectives (pp. 193–209). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Frone, M.R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M.L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied

Psychology,, 77(1), 65–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.1.65.Frone, M.R., Yardley, J.K., & Markel, K.S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work–family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.Galinsky, E., Bond, J.T., Kim, S.S., Backon, L., Brownfield, E., & Sakai, K. (2005). Overwork in America: When the way we work becomes too much. New York: Families and

Work Institute.George, J.M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86, 513–524.Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.Grandey, A.A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.Grover, S.L., & Crooker, K.J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organisational attach-

ment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48, 271–287.Grzywacz, J.G. (2000). Work–family spillover and health during midlife: Is managing conflict everything? American Journal of Health Promotion, 14(4), 236–243.Grzywacz, J.G., & Marks, N.F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover be-

tween work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111–126.

55T.T.(R.) Selvarajan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 94 (2016) 39–56

Halbesleben, J.R., Neveu, J.P., Paustian-Underdahl, S.C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in Conservation of Resourcestheory. Journal of Management (0149206314527130).

Hammer, L.B., Kossek, E.E., Anger, W.K., Bodner, T., & Zimmerman, K.L. (2011). Clarifying work–family intervention processes: The roles of work–family conflict andfamily-supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 134.

Havill, V.L., Besevegis, E., &Mouroussaki, S. (1998). Agreeableness as a diachronic human trait. Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of theBig Five (pp. 49–64).

Hobfoll, S.E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review, 50(3), 337–421.

Hobfoll, S.E., Freedy, J., Lane, C., & Geller, P. (1990). Conservation of social resources: Social support resource theory. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(4),465–478.

Hurtz, G.M., & Donovan, J.J. (2000). Personality and job performance: the Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869.Ilies, R., Schwind, K.M., Wagner, D.T., Johnson, M.D., DeRue, D.S., & Ilgen, D.R. (2007). When can employees have a family life? The effects of daily workload and affect

on work–family conflict and social behaviors at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1368–1379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1368.Judge, T.A., Higgins, C.A., Thoresen, C.J., & Barrick, M.R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel

Psychology, 52(3), 621–652.Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A., & Durham, C.C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19,

151–188.Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A., Durham, C.C., & Kluger, A.N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology,

83(1), 17–34.Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D., Judge, T.A., & Scott, B.A. (2009). The role of core self-evaluations in the coping process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 177–195.Kelly, E.L., Moen, P., Oakes, J.M., Fan, W., Okechukwu, C., Davis, K.D., & Mierzwa, F. (2014). Changing work and work–family conflict evidence from the work, family,

and health network. American Sociological Review (0003122414531435).Kossek, E. E., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2001). Caregiving decisions, well-being and performance: The effects of place and provider as a function of dependent type and

work-family climates. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 29–44.Kossek, E.E., Lewis, S., & Hammer, L.B. (2010). Work–life initiatives and organizational change: Overcoming mixed messages to move from the margin to the main-

stream. Human Relations, 63(1), 3–19.Kossek, E.E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L.B. (2011). Workplace social support and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence general and

work–family specific supervisor and organizational support. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 64, 289–313.Lachman, M.E., & Weaver, S.L. (1997). The Midlife Development Inventory (MIDI) Personality Scales: Scale construction and scoring. Technical report (http://www.

brandeis.edu/projects/lifespan/MIDI-Personality-Scales.pdf).Lai, C., Singh, B., Alshwer, A.A., & Shaffer, M.A. (2014). Building and Leveraging Interpersonal Trust within and across MNE Subsidiaries: A social exchange perspective.

Journal of International Management, 20(3), 312–326.Larsen, R.J., & Ketelaar, T. (1989). Extraversion, neuroticism, and susceptibility to positive and negative mood induction procedures. Personality and Individual

Differences, 10(12), 1221–1228.McCrae, R.R., & John, O.P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.Mesmer-Magnus, J.R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2006). How family-friendly work environments affect work/family conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Labor

Research, 27(4), 555–574.Michel, J.S., & Clark, M.A. (2013). Investigating the relative importance of individual differences on the work–family interface and the moderating role of boundary

preference for segmentation. Stress and Health, 29(4), 324–336.Michel, J.S., Mitchelson, J.K., Pichler, S., & Cullen, K.L. (2010). Clarifying relationships amongwork and family social support, stressors, andwork–family conflict. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 76(1), 91–104.Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80(4), 252–283.Mount, M.K., & Barrick, M.R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resourcemanagement. Research in Personnel

and Human Resources Management, 13, 153–200.Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R., & Stewart, G.L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance,

11(2–3), 145–165.Naswal, K., Severe, M., & Hellene, J. (2005). The moderating role of personality characteristics on the relation between job insecurity and strain. Work & Stress, 19(1),

37–49.Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology,

81(4), 400–410.Ngo, H., Foley, S., & Loi, R. (2009). Family friendly work practices, organizational climate, and firm performance: A study of multinational corporations in Hong Kong.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(5), 665–680.Parker, S.K., Johnson, A., Collins, C., & Ngyuen, H. (2013). Making themost of structural support. Moderating influence of employee clarity and negative affect. Academy

of Management Journal, 56(3), 867–892.Powell, G.N., & Greenhaus, J.H. (2010). Sex, gender, and decisions at the family–work interface. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1011–1039.Schwarzer, R., Boehmer, S., Luszczynska, A., Mohamed, N.E., & Knoll, N. (2005). Dispositional self-efficacy as a personal resource factor in coping after surgery.

Personality and Individual Differences, 39(4), 807–818.Selvarajan, T.T., Cloninger, P.A., & Singh, B. (2013). Social support and work–family conflict. A test of an indirect effects model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3),

486–499.Shockley, K.M., & Allen, T.D. (2007). When flexibility helps: another look at the availability of flexible work arrangements and work–family conflict. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 71(3), 479–493.Shockley, K.M., & Allen, T.D. (2013). Episodic work–family conflict, cardiovascular indicators, and social support: An experience sampling approach. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 18(3), 262.Shoda, Y., & Mischel, W. (1993). Cognitive social approach to dispositional inferences: What if the perceiver is a cognitive-social theorist? Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 19(5), 574–585.Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P.K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diag-

nostic conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 978–986.Skarlicki, D.P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1),

100–108.Stoeva, A.Z., Chiu, R.K., & Greenhaus, J.H. (2002). Negative affectivity, role stress, and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60(1), 1–16.Suls, J., Green, P., & Hillis, S. (1998). Emotional reactivity to everyday problems, affective inertia, and neuroticism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(2),

127–136.Tang, C., &Wadsworth, S.M. (2008). Time and workplace flexibility.National Study of ChangingWorkforce. Families andWork Institute ( http://www.familiesandwork.

org/site/research/reports/time_work_flex.pdf).Taylor, B.L., Delcampo, R.G., & Blancero, D.M. (2009). Work–family conflict/facilitation and the role of workplace supports for U.S. Hispanic professionals. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 30, 643–664.Ten Brummelhuis, L.L., & Bakker, A.B. (2012). A resource perspective on thework–home interface: The work–home resourcesmodel. American Psychologist, 67(7), 545.Terborg, J.R., Richardson, P., & Pritchard, R.D. (1980). Person-situation effects in the prediction of performance: An investigation of ability, self-esteem, and reward con-

tingencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(5), 574–583.Thoits, P.A. (1992). Identify structures and psychological well-being: gender and marital status comparisons. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(3), 236–256.

56 T.T.(R.) Selvarajan et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 94 (2016) 39–56

Thoits, P.A. (1994). Stressors and problem-solving: The individual and psychological activist. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 143–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2137362.

Thoits, P.A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 145–161.Valcour, M., Ollier-Malaterre, A., Matz-Costa, C., Pitt-Catsouphes, M., & Brown, M. (2011). Influences on employee perceptions of organizational work–life support: Sig-

nals and resources. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 588–595.Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 47, 1063–1070.Wayne, J.H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work–family experience: Relationships of the Big Five to work–family conflict

and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 108–130.Witt, L.A., & Carlson, D.S. (2006). The work-family interface and job performance: Moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(4), 343.Witt, L.A., Burke, L.A., Barrick, M.A., & Mount, M.K. (2002). The interactive effects of conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 87(1), 164.Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J.M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A

diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 259–295.Zhao, H., & Seibert, S.E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: Ameta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259–271.